Fox and Friends starts at 6AM Eastern. The sun is rising at about 6:30 AM right on the ocean give or take a few depending on how far North/South you are. Further inland Eastern Time Zone areas like Cincinnati and Atlanta will be a little after 7AM.

Elandriel:Well, I think that if this big swing in the polls for Romney is based largely on people finally starting to tune in, then pretty soon they will become aware of what the rest of us have known for a long time.

snowshovel:Elandriel: Well, I think that if this big swing in the polls for Romney is based largely on people finally starting to tune in, then pretty soon they will become aware of what the rest of us have known for a long time.

Notabunny:snowshovel: Elandriel: Well, I think that if this big swing in the polls for Romney is based largely on people finally starting to tune in, then pretty soon they will become aware of what the rest of us have known for a long time.

That Obama is a Marxist?

Vulcan.

Meh, a Vulcan would debate better. But when you spend your entire little Marxist life inside a booble ball of Marxists lessons, I guess that's what happens when you run against some one with a full, real world experience.

What I don't get is that if The ModelTM fluctuates with the polls and events like the conventions and the debate... what's the point of even having The Model?TM It has little predictive power because it's a victim of the situation on the ground.

shower_in_my_socks:The story SHOULD have been "Romney just completely reversed half of his platform in 90-minutes," but that would have led us into Obama landslide territory, and dammit we have ratings wars to win here, people.

a bunch of this. Romney reversing got some coverage but it was spotty and on cable news.

elchip:What I don't get is that if The ModelTM fluctuates with the polls and events like the conventions and the debate... what's the point of even having The Model?TM It has little predictive power because it's a victim of the situation on the ground.

Nate Silver is not Hari Seldon.

Maybe he's not, but he shows humanity moving in that direction. And Seldon's Psycho-history wasn't absolute; it was all about percentages (an idea they stole for Quantum Leap).

The other important aspect is that analyzing something and acting on the results alters the situation being analyzed. A known problem on Wall St for decades. And in economics. Etc.

Silverstaff:"The Continuing Importance of Protecting the Electoral College

We oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or any other scheme to abolish or distort the procedures of the Electoral College. We recognize that an unconstitutional effort to impose "national popular vote" would be a mortal threat to our federal system and a guarantee of corruption as every ballot box in every state would become a chance to steal the presidency."

I know we all know this, but I just have to mention there is nothing in the Constitution about how electoral votes are to be allocated by the state. In fact, the only offices the Constitution required be put up to vote was for members of the House (and later members of the Senate through the 17th Amendment.)

In our earliest elections state legislatures directly appointed their representation in the electoral college; this died out in a few decades in for the most part except for South Carolina which continued direct appointment of electors up until they seceded. State legislatures were replaced with a more democratic popular vote within the state, who would send all supporters of the majority-backed candidate in the state to elect the president.

The Constitution says how states are awarded electoral votes, but does not include requirements of how the states choose to allocate those votes. If enough states pass a law that says "if a law like this is in a number of states and districts to make up a majority of the electoral college, then this state will award its electoral votes to the national popular vote winner" there isn't a damn thing in the Constitution to stop it.

In my lifetime, I don't think I've ever seen a leading candidate take such a nose dive in the polls after one debate - which means one of two things: a) Romney is making a historic comeback, or; b) he's riding a bubble that will pop at the worst possible moment.

Or, c) the period before the drop was the bubble.

Maybe a lot of voters only knew Romney from the picture painted by the opposition, e.g Romney as an arrogant elitist android, and then voters saw him on TV not being an arrogant elitist android, and this dispelled the image somewhat and shifted public opinion towards a closer race.

If that's the case, then we'd see his numbers rise after a major public appearance regardless of who won the debate---as long as he didn't do something stupid like fire his servants on live TV.

elchip:Dwight_Yeast: And Seldon's Psycho-history wasn't absolute; it was all about percentages

So what you're saying is, the debate was The Mule.

Not at all. Romney suddenly not behaving like Romney and steering hard to the center in the first debate was something neither Nate Silver nor Obama's election staff had expected, but it's only had a limited, short-term effect on the numbers.

Something like LBJ not seeking re-election at the last minute would be The Mule to Silver's analysis. But that's why it's all still percentrages at this point: up election date, anything can happen.

elchip:What I don't get is that if The ModelTM fluctuates with the polls and events like the conventions and the debate... what's the point of even having The Model?TM It has little predictive power because it's a victim of the situation on the ground.

Nate Silver is not Hari Seldon.

The model aggregates the polls and tries to weight them for historical reliability/house effects, established metrics that correlate with support or opposition of the incumbent party on election day, and the average historical tightening of the race. It cannot control for exogenous events: you can't criticize Silver too much if he said a Senator had a 94% chance of reelection only for his support to crater when the police find all those dead hookers in his crawlspace a week before the election.

Silver's analysis showed it a 60/40 chance of Obama's reelection with little change through most of the summer, because following the standard race that's where he expected Obama to be on Election Day. The DNC came and went and it took a month for Obama to get above 85% where he reached his peak weeks after his strongest polling after the convention. Silver expected that Obama and Romney would both get a bump that would dissipate in a few weeks, but that didn't happen because of exogenous events, particularly the Benghazi attack (and Romney's reaction) as well as the 47% video. Obama wasn't losing supporters and the more persistent his edge was the more likely the model put him to win. Romney got a major bump a week and a half ago and just now hit a place that makes him very competitive in the model. No, it's not because Romney's poll numbers shot up as much as they have remained up, and as such you have to assume this isn't just a bump but on some level a genuine shift. It helps answer lots of important questions for the political junkies, but doesn't help answer the question of who will win on election day if we have reason to believe the race is going to see another few controversies before election day. If they don't have the controversies, it should match the prediction.

Silverstaff:Bucky Katt: With all the paid shills, there's already too much trolling here. Why do have to add to it?

I always wondered, how do you get a job as a paid shill? I mean, paid to go on Facebook and Twitter and Fark and Reddit and all these other websites and social media platforms and mindlessly spout the party line, insult the other side, and try to fake there being more than just one of you?

We know they are out there, but it's not like they advertise for it in help wanted sections.

Is this some kind of work-from-home rehab program for the brain damaged? A part-time job for an entire chapter of Young Republicans?

I imagine it's similar to how they just went to the Heritage Foundation web site, looked for the most conservative posters, and just gave them jobs rebuilding Iraq.

Thanks for the link. Not only is Obama a 5 point favorite, but he's above 50%, and these results are nearly identical to CNN and NBC polls from a few days ago. It seems that between OH, MI, WI, NV, etc. that Obama's "electoral firewall" is holding.

I doubt we'll get another Obama no-show at the remaining debates, so it comes down to whether or not Romney's strategy to save his big ad blitz for the final 3 weeks was a good idea.

Summoner101:And I wouldn't be surprised if every republican anywhere then proclaims that the electoral college system is broken and that Obama shouldn't be the president.

And I will think back to 2000 and weep.

It's already happening. Back before the debate and shortly afterwards I couldn't go a day without hearing how the electoral college is unfair and should be dismantled as soon as possible. From conservatives, no less.

I asked them if they would be comfortable with a President Gore. They didn't like that question too much.

Hell, days before the 2000 election, republicans were already mapping out a strategy should Bush win the poplular vote but lose the electoral college.

shower_in_my_socks:I doubt we'll get another Obama no-show at the remaining debates, so it comes down to whether or not Romney's strategy to save his big ad blitz for the final 3 weeks was a good idea.

I'm leaning towards no on the whole because it won't influence the early/absentee voters, though it probably helps for those who haven't voted.

Biological Ali:born_yesterday: GAT_00: Slam1263: Well, it is the NY Times.

Carrying water for progressives since 1804.

Hi new election troll alt.

Don't you have an electron troll alt? I have six or seven.

I find it allows me to be "edgy" without jeopardizing the street cred that I've earned as born_yesterday.

/What can I say, I like a-herpin and a-derpin!

I have at least eight alts in this thread alone.

Every poster in this thread is one of my alts. I have severe psychological problems.

Silverstaff:The All-Powerful Atheismo: culebra: Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama loses the popular vote but beats out Romney by 15-30 EV.

And I wouldn't be surprised if every republican anywhere then proclaims that the electoral college system is broken and that Obama shouldn't be the president.

And I will think back to 2000 and weep.

The extra funny, bonus thing about that is that the Republicans put enthusiastic support for the Electoral College system as a plank of their platform this year, we'd watch them flip-flop on a main plank in their platform because they got butthurt:

Link

"The Continuing Importance of Protecting the Electoral College

We oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or any other scheme to abolish or distort the procedures of the Electoral College. We recognize that an unconstitutional effort to impose "national popular vote" would be a mortal threat to our federal system and a guarantee of corruption as every ballot box in every state would become a chance to steal the presidency."

I've seen this movie and I know how it ends. The puppetmasters in the GOP lead the teabagging sheep to scream and cry and spend 6-18 months with failed petitions and proposed amendments to do away with the electoral college. Then they declare, "the federal government can't do anything right," and "the evil liberal bigots won't let us" and then they spend BILLIONS trying to kick off amendments/laws to state constitutions in blue states making them split up their electoral votes while keeping all the safe red states as winner-take-all.

Theoretically the democrats could snipe that position by doing the same thing in the red states FIRST, but they'd have to do it first, they wouldn't have the advantage in dollah-dollahs, and the GOP would flip-flop again to call it, "dirty tricks by evil liberal operatives."

TheBigJerk:Silverstaff: The All-Powerful Atheismo: culebra: Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama loses the popular vote but beats out Romney by 15-30 EV.

And I wouldn't be surprised if every republican anywhere then proclaims that the electoral college system is broken and that Obama shouldn't be the president.

And I will think back to 2000 and weep.

The extra funny, bonus thing about that is that the Republicans put enthusiastic support for the Electoral College system as a plank of their platform this year, we'd watch them flip-flop on a main plank in their platform because they got butthurt:

Link

"The Continuing Importance of Protecting the Electoral College

We oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or any other scheme to abolish or distort the procedures of the Electoral College. We recognize that an unconstitutional effort to impose "national popular vote" would be a mortal threat to our federal system and a guarantee of corruption as every ballot box in every state would become a chance to steal the presidency."

I've seen this movie and I know how it ends. The puppetmasters in the GOP lead the teabagging sheep to scream and cry and spend 6-18 months with failed petitions and proposed amendments to do away with the electoral college. Then they declare, "the federal government can't do anything right," and "the evil liberal bigots won't let us" and then they spend BILLIONS trying to kick off amendments/laws to state constitutions in blue states making them split up their electoral votes while keeping all the safe red states as winner-take-all.

Theoretically the democrats could snipe that position by doing the same thing in the red states FIRST, but they'd have to do it first, they wouldn't have the advantage in dollah-dollahs, and the GOP would flip-flop again to call it, "dirty tricks by evil liberal operatives."

But what do I know?

Thinking about this more, the swing states would be really interesting. Right now they get a lot of free attention and offers and importance because they are swing states. This means they are battlegrounds that in some cases the national parties would probably prefer NOT to have to fight over, and splitting their electoral votes could affect that. Sometimes there would be battles, but other times one party or another would just squat on their safe districts and focus their money elsewhere.

But on the flip side, while you regular swing-state dwellers probably HATE the endless, irritating, horrible commercial vomit that fills your state it is a LOT of cash and a LOT of "consideration" (money money money) your state might not otherwise get and local politicians and parties really, really want. The internal struggles between Governor Pork-Barrel and Representative Vacation-home-out-of-state would be fascinating.

Example, Minnesota leans democrat but Bachmann's district is (IIRC) as red as they come, split the electoral vote by district and the Republicans can basically abandon the state instead of trying to fight it out.